With the first elections after last year's transfer of power taking place tomorrow, scrutiny of the television advertisements of four parties -- the KMT, the DPP, the People's First Party (PFP) and the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) -- reveals interesting disparities in their media-saviness and hence, crucially, in their ability to secure votes.
In previous elections, the media of choice during the early stages of the campaigns were newspapers. In the final stages of the elections, advertisements were evenly divided between newspapers and television.
This year, however, the focus has been primarily on television. Not until Nov. 15 did we see the first newspaper ad by the TSU presenting its political views and a newspaper ad by the KMT rebutting DPP allegations. Television is an emotional medium suited for image-building and negative attacks, while newspa-pers are a rational medium suitable for stating political opinions.
There are three "Ms" that make up advertising's holy grail -- message, media, and money. The KMT only pays attention to two -- media and money. The KMT's advertising advantage lies in its ability to spend the money necessary to ensure its television advertisements get wide and frequent exposure.
When it comes to the treatment of the message, however, the KMT fails on several fronts. The KMT is broadcasting frequently but its advertisements are not consistent. Each ad has its own style and there is no unifying theme for the advertising campaign, which diminishes the impact. Also, almost all the advertisements are attacks on opponents. The ads are not used to present political views or rebut criticism.
The KMT also focuses too much on being original purely for the sake of originality. The meatball ad and the preposterous KTV ad are original and amusing, but that doesn't mean that they will bring in votes. Voters will laugh as intended when they see them, but will their attitudes change? Will the advertisements achieve the aim of persuading them to vote for the KMT? It seems that these issues have been ignored. Electoral behavior is accompa-nied by a strong sense of involve-ment. Simply being amusing achieves nothing.
There are other details that the KMT neglects in its ads. In the Legislative Yuan ad, news footage has been edited to show former DPP legislator (now premier) Chang Chun-hsiung (張俊雄) slapping former KMT Legislative Yuan speaker Liang Su-jung (梁肅戎) in the face and President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) tearing up a budget proposal. Even though the ad means to attack the two for their opinions, it will serve only to make heroes out of Chen and Chang in the eyes of DPP supporters. The attack will end up generating support for the enemy.
The DPP's TV ads are a lot clearer, though they lag far behind the KMT's in terms of originality. Their main themes and messages are clear. The party adopted a strategy of saying that the KMT is obstructing the DPP and failing the public. On top of this, the ads substantiate their claims with evidence. The information is clear and simple without being "original" by virtue of exaggeration or inflated self-importance, and this is effective advertising, likely to attract votes.
From the point of view of mass-media theory, while the KMT responded to the DPP's ad campaign with its own newspaper and TV ads, such spin after the fact is likely to be inconsequential because the impression has already been left on the voter.
The PFP's advertisements are divided 50-50 between image-building and political attacks. The ads attacks the DPP saying that "a miss is as good as a mile," and it focuses on the merging of ethnic groups. The problem is that all of the parties support integration.
Using these ads as a platform is unlikely to have a decisive impact. The advantage of "a miss is as good as a mile" is that it sits well on the tongue, but its meaning is obscure, leaving room for interpretation and selective understanding among voters. The PFP's ads, moreover, are overly reliant on its chairman, James Soong (
The TSU is a small, new party making it all the more imperative that it gets its message out. Their water buffalo ads, however, suggest that they haven't handled the opportunity very well. It is doubtful that the electorate will be persuaded to vote for the TSU when they see a television advertisement that uses the image of a water buffalo as a symbol for the people of Taiwan.
Campaign advertising is not the same as commercial advertising. Success or failure is determined within a short period of time and there is no scope for an impression to be created over a long period of time. In commercial advertising, the audience's feeling of participation is low, while in campaign advertising it is high. Campaign advertising must secure votes, not entertain the electorate. Showing off one's originality in an attempt to ingratiate oneself with voters is not very clever.
Cheng Tzu-leong is a professor in the department of advertising at National Chengchi University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers